the "min" raise - please teach the newbie

[stripsqueez]

my last thread in this forum i was told that a "min" raise was an outrage - i assume we are talking a minimum raise ie twice the BB

apparently its not clever - it stinks - its playing soft - you deserve to get beat when you do it - and its beyond belief that someone playing $200+$15 SNG's does it

why ?

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[RoyalSampler]

I'd like to see the rest of the comments here, but I do actually see a purpose for it. It can be useful deception, for your opponents are likely to underestimate you, without a better read.

I.e. I have after joining a table... raised big preflop then min raised to try and act like a newbie who has missed the flop, but knows to keep momentum. When in actual fact I had a monster.

[La Brujita]

I am guessing you are writing half jokingly but I guess part of the problem is you have to make sure you are not pricing someone in when you miniraise. As a result of the previous discussion I posted two of my hands I miniraised on the multitable forum (but nobody cared enough to respond) /images/graemlins/blush.gif.

Here is the link



Mini Raise Hands (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=767105&page=4&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=365&fpart=1#767105)

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
I am guessing you are writing half jokingly

[/ QUOTE ]

nope

[ QUOTE ]
but I guess part of the problem is you have to make sure you are not pricing someone in when you miniraise

[/ QUOTE ]

i understand that - its not a limit game though where you have to get value on every betting round - i view raising the minimum pre-flop as getting a bit of extra money in when you likely have the best hand but also attracting customers for your premium hand balanced by getting out cheap if you dont like the flop - when i minimum raise pre-flop depending on my position and number of runners i may have KJs or i may have AA

i read your post - i think you played those hands ok

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Nemesis]

I know you're a better NL/SNG player than me... most everyone is. I would say the big problem with the min raise when you have a premium hand is you invite anybody with a suited connector/low pp to try to bust you when they hit the flop harder than you do... where a 3-4 BB raise would make them fold. You just have to balance the risk v. reward like everything else. It's quite similar to limping in with AA and waiting to bust a habitual bluffer... he may actually have hit something this time.

[Hood]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am guessing you are writing half jokingly

[/ QUOTE ]

nope

[ QUOTE ]
but I guess part of the problem is you have to make sure you are not pricing someone in when you miniraise

[/ QUOTE ]

i understand that - its not a limit game though where you have to get value on every betting round - i view raising the minimum pre-flop as getting a bit of extra money in when you likely have the best hand but also attracting customers for your premium hand balanced by getting out cheap if you dont like the flop - when i minimum raise pre-flop depending on my position and number of runners i may have KJs or i may have AA

i read your post - i think you played those hands ok

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted something regarding bet sizes a few days ago. I questioned reasons behind the 3x BB raise, and what was wrong with teh min raise. It was a good discussion, look back a few days and you should find it.

I think what it comes down to is the difference of SNGs to ring games, and you have to difrentiate between chip EV and $EV. In a ring game, you want to maximise the pot. That means with your AK, you want as many callers, so you bet what you think will get the biggest pot. However in an SNG, you have to consider when you lose your chips, it's the end of the tounrey, and you get nothing.

For that reason, you may want to take on a gamble that wins you less money, but you win more frequently. This is because of your finite 'bankroll' of chips in the tourney.

So with hands like AK, AQ, KK, QQ, what I'm aiming for is either to a) take down the pot now or b) Get one or two callers, and then take down the pot if I hit on the flop.

In early betting rounds in an SNG, I rarely make a big pot, and I rarely go out in the first 4 spots. I'm usually one of the shorter stacks when we hit level 3/4 with 6 players left, which is when I try and build up my stack. So when I get a premium hand, I'm happy to pick up a couple of hundred chips rather than maximising my return by min-raising and getting 8 limpers and losing all my chips with AK to T8 with AT8 flop.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
my last thread in this forum i was told that a "min" raise was an outrage - i assume we are talking a minimum raise ie twice the BB

apparently its not clever - it stinks - its playing soft - you deserve to get beat when you do it - and its beyond belief that someone playing $200+$15 SNG's does it


[/ QUOTE ]

lol - i said all of that !!??

[donkeyradish]

I will do this as well (in a tournament). I'm trying to represent some kind of vulnerable hand or a draw and I'm always hoping to try and induce someone else to go all-in.

This works often enough, that I'm going to keep on doing it!

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

If 1) your opponents tend to be on the tight side, 2) you can outplay them postflop and 3) it's your standard raise, then it's not a total abomination. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
I will do this as well (in a tournament). I'm trying to represent some kind of vulnerable hand or a draw and I'm always hoping to try and induce someone else to go all-in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh man please all it represents is that you have a monster, AA KK preflop, or after flop top 2 pair or a set.

[ QUOTE ]
If 1) your opponents tend to be on the tight side, 2) you can outplay them postflop and 3) it's your standard raise, then it's not a total abomination. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe but it has become pretty obvious to me that I should tread carefully any time I see a min raise, to me they stink of a monster.

Regards ML

[Jason Strasser]

The min raise is not a horrible play all the time. I just think that most often in a tourny, there is almost always a better solution to the minimum raise. You can't say that it is always the bad play, and there is no one reason why it is always not the preferred choice. However there are general reasons why it is not good.

1) If you do it preflop, the blinds will often come along increasing variance.

2) In basketball, if you make a pass that is stolen easily, you probably telegraphed it. A min raise is similar to this, I see something like this: EP raises to 100 (blinds 15/30), MP cold calls, Buttom min raises. This is a telegraph. It is obvious what the button has (usually), and I laugh when I see stuff like this (and am very happy with my implied odds if I had decided to tag along with a mid pocket pair).

3) The min raise also tells me when people are drawing. Bad players lead out in EP with min raises when they are drawing. I see it all the time. They figure your average passive player will just call and pay them off if they hit.


This list can go on. I just think that the min raise is generally not a creative play, and it generally allows more people than you'd like to continue on in the hand, and potentially outdraw. In a ring game, the min raise has more of a purpose because variance is not that big of a concern. The tournament player can lose a lot of money attempting to increase pot volume with small edges.

I'm not one of those people who instantly jumps to criticize a min raise when I see one... However there is almost always a better choice.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Bad players lead out in EP with min raises when they are drawing. I see it all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

What hands aren't drawin hands preflop? Only AA, and KK right? Are you saying that a minraise makes it clear the raisor doesn't have AA or KK? If you are saying that, you are clealy wrong.

I'm assuming you aren't talking about postflop play since you can't "lead out" with a raise postflop.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
The min raise is not a horrible play all the time. I just think that most often in a tourny, there is almost always a better solution to the minimum raise. You can't say that it is always the bad play, and there is no one reason why it is always not the preferred choice. However there are general reasons why it is not good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I basically agree with this, though i can't think of an occassion when i've seen this as a good play.

[ QUOTE ]
2) In basketball, if you make a pass that is stolen easily, you probably telegraphed it. A min raise is similar to this, I see something like this: EP raises to 100 (blinds 15/30), MP cold calls, Buttom min raises. This is a telegraph. It is obvious what the button has (usually), and I laugh when I see stuff like this (and am very happy with my implied odds if I had decided to tag along with a mid pocket pair).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what i'm talking about you so know it's KK or AA that it's not true.

e.g 1st hand of Party 10+1 UTG raises to 30, I'm in 3rd position with KK, I raise to 200, everyone folds to min raiser who goes all in, I wish I could say I folded, I was pretty certain he had AA but I called it anyway, needless to say he did. I have dozens of similar examples, some where I called and some where I folded, some where they gave me odds to beat them and I flopped a set and took thier stack. My basic point was there seems little or no deception can be achieved by this play as you can more or less pin them down to 2 or 3 hands when they do it.

[ QUOTE ]
This list can go on. I just think that the min raise is generally not a creative play, and it generally allows more people than you'd like to continue on in the hand, and potentially outdraw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen to that.

Regards ML

[Jason Strasser]

I'm talking postflop. IE dumb player in EP flops flush draw, bets out 15 into the 5 players to act behind him.

Edit: Why can't you lead out postflop? If that is incorrect (verbally), then I meant open the betting postflop.

[sprmario]

I'm very new to poker but I am catching on quickly and I have a long history of playing "games" of many different types. It seems to me that any tool has it's uses. If you are playing vs. people who have a strong belief that min raises are indications of a monster hand then you can use this as a deception when you want to see a flop w/ a drawing hand or when you totally miss your flop. If you are playing vs. people who will fold to min raises, then why make a bigger raise? Why risk a larger portion of your stack than neccessary?

The fact that a lot of players here give totally opposite opinions on why people might min raise gives you an idea that it is not as obvious as some people might lead you to believe. Is someone betting out w/ a min bet drawing? or do they have a monster? Both have been suggested here by good players.

[La Brujita]

stripsqeez,

I thought you were joking because you called yourself a newbie with (i) a huge post count and (ii) experience playing huge games.

I have mixed feelings about the miniraise for a few reasons.

1. I think a lot of it has to do with deepness of money. The shallower the money the more you want to just take down the pot if you can. This is especially true when the blinds get big in a sit and go and one or two blind steals may make the difference between a win and a loss. If the money is deep I think with a hand like AK you want to get rid of some of the garbage hands that have correct odds to outdraw you but might not stand for a bigger raise. Due to the implied odds wiht deep stacks you might well call a mini raise with a suited connector early. I think this pricing is the converse of the 5/10 rule.

2. I guess on the internet especially it is sometimes harder to outplay playes postflop since you may or may not be familiar with them and since you can't see them. Of course a mini raise brings in more players so post flop play is more crucial. The shallower the stacks the less important post flop play becomes as compared to pre flop, and sit and gos get pretty shallow.

3. I don't know that miniraise play is less creative per se as Jason suggests because he is talking about its application I believe rather than the actual raise itself. However I do agree with him that when you weigh all factors there often is a better play. I have to disagree with him on one other thing. Perhaps a miniraise is a telegraph but I play big games as well and I mini raise with AA (like in the hand I posted) and I people seem to fall into the trap pretty regularly. I think good players often ascribe higher levels of observation to bad players than the bad players deserve.

Regards

[RoyalSampler]

I was talking post flop. I strongly disagree that it reaks of "monster". I'd say 80% of what I see (UB 10-25c), it's just newbies trying to keep momentum after a preflop raise and a flop that didn't hit. But... I've also used this as a bluff and it seems to scare people, using it essentially the same as a check raise.

[slogger]

Although I disagree with a couple of your comments regarding ring games, I think you hit the nail on the head when you talk about playing small pots in tournaments, particularly SnGs. Playing and winning many small pots wins SnG tournaments.

And winning small pots does not mean betting/raising small. It means making bets that put pressure on your opponents. Bets that force your opponents to make mistakes. Bets that force your opponents to provide you with as much information as possible about their hands.

In all but a few SnG situations (such as certain spots in the very late stages and on the later streets), I find the mini-bet/mini-raise to be completely worthless. Pre-flop, these bets have practically zero fold equity. It allows opponents (like me) to see flops with 87s, A3s, etc. and if I'm in the big blind, with almost any two cards (hands that will bust QQ, KK and even AA a lot more often than the other way around because they will fold to any significant flop action).

The pre-flop mini-raise may win you a few extra chips when you're able to take the pot down on the flop. But when you let 4 or 5 players see a flop and 1 or 2 of them follow you to the turn, you're in big trouble and when you now fold, you've lost 10-15 units instead of winning the 3-5 units that you could have taken without a fight.

[Beavis68]

Sorry if I am being redundant:

Pre-flop with AA specifically, you don't want to build a pot, you want to thin the field. The only time I would min raise with AA is from the button or the SB is it was folded to me, or from UTG where I thought an aggressive opponent might re-raise me.

Post flop, it is a fundamental threory of poker arguemenet. Anytime your opponent is correct in calling a bet, you lose, anytime they are incorrect, you win, regardless of the outcome of the hand. If you are giving your opponenent the odds to call and draw out, you are paying them to beat you. You need to bet enough to make it a mistake for your oppnenet to call you.

Say I had KK and I knew you had AA. There is $25 in the pot. Flop is all rags. I check, you bet $1. Even knowing you have AA is it correct for me to call. Over the long run, calling here will make me money, and lose you money.

[MWC]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: Why can't you lead out postflop? If that is incorrect (verbally), then I meant open the betting postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps it was the "with min raises" that ZeeJustin objected to? You can lead out from EP, but it's a bet, not a raise.

[ZeeJustin]

A minraise by definition requres a bet (forced or otherwise).

Preflop, a minraise is raising to 2x the BB. This thread seemed mainly about these preflop minraises.

Postflop, your possible actions are check bet and fold unless there is a bet. If there is a bet, you can now call raise or fold. You cannot raise the minimum if there is no bet to raise.

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought you were joking because you called yourself a newbie with (i) a huge post count and (ii) experience playing huge games

[/ QUOTE ]

i am a NL and tourney newbie - i've played a bit but never a lot - i've never read anything about either version of the game and do ok with the poker skills i have


[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of it has to do with deepness of money. The shallower the money the more you want to just take down the pot if you can. This is especially true when the blinds get big in a sit and go and one or two blind steals may make the difference between a win and a loss

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont want to define when i minimum raise pre-flop but i dont do it when taking the blinds is a big help to me

[ QUOTE ]
If the money is deep I think with a hand like AK you want to get rid of some of the garbage hands that have correct odds to outdraw you but might not stand for a bigger raise

[/ QUOTE ]

Zee mentions somewhere in this thread that all hands are drawing hands except perhaps AA and KK - i know what he means and your echoing that thought here - if i have AK and there are say 3 limpers to me with the blinds at 25/50 i probably just push - i am less tempted to push with AA

[ QUOTE ]
I guess on the internet especially it is sometimes harder to outplay playes postflop since you may or may not be familiar with them and since you can't see them. Of course a mini raise brings in more players so post flop play is more crucial

[/ QUOTE ]

i consistently get called all in by guys with flush draws or straight draws who have no business so doing - perhaps the minimum raise is dependant on the fact that i think most of my opponents suck big time post flop

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
Pre-flop with AA specifically, you don't want to build a pot, you want to thin the field. The only time I would min raise with AA is from the button or the SB is it was folded to me, or from UTG where I thought an aggressive opponent might re-raise me

[/ QUOTE ]

early in a SNG if i pick up AA i am prepared to take big risks with the chance of me winning the hand in order to increase the chances i will win a lot - i could take a 90% shot at winning 50 or a 60% shot at winning 1000 to take some random numbers - at this stage of the tournament winning 50 means bugger all - i would rather take a shot at making heaps of chips - i often percive the minimum raise with big hands like AA to give me the best platform to do so


[ QUOTE ]
fundamental threory of poker arguemenet. Anytime your opponent is correct in calling a bet, you lose, anytime they are incorrect, you win, regardless of the outcome of the hand

[/ QUOTE ]

the theory doesnt strictly apply to a tourney where there is a much bigger picture to consider

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pre-flop with AA specifically, you don't want to build a pot, you want to thin the field. The only time I would min raise with AA is from the button or the SB is it was folded to me, or from UTG where I thought an aggressive opponent might re-raise me

[/ QUOTE ]

early in a SNG if i pick up AA i am prepared to take big risks with the chance of me winning the hand in order to increase the chances i will win a lot - i could take a 90% shot at winning 50 or a 60% shot at winning 1000 to take some random numbers - at this stage of the tournament winning 50 means bugger all - i would rather take a shot at making heaps of chips - i often percive the minimum raise with big hands like AA to give me the best platform to do so


[ QUOTE ]
fundamental threory of poker arguemenet. Anytime your opponent is correct in calling a bet, you lose, anytime they are incorrect, you win, regardless of the outcome of the hand

[/ QUOTE ]

the theory doesnt strictly apply to a tourney where there is a much bigger picture to consider

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[/ QUOTE ]

Point A is fine if: a) you can lay down AA. b) you don't mind putting all your chips in on a flop where you are the underdog.

I have foud there will be other chances in a tournament where I can trap people with much stronger hand (straight -flushes - etc.)

Point B) the FTOP is even more true. Anytime you are giving your opponent a chance to draw at you with favorable odds you are making a mistake, but tournament chips are even more valuable, so protect them.

[AleoMagus]

I think what so many people get wrong with the min-raise is the suggestion that it always prices opponents into the hand or that it is always correct to call it if you are already in.

As any limit (tourney, SNG, or ring) player will attest, there are plenty of times when it is correct to fold to a limit (min) raise. If it is such a common leak to see people always calling these in NLHE sngs, why not exploit it now and then?

The best example of this is in bubble play where players should be conservative about big confrontations but can't seem to get away from a pot when the raising is small. Well, sure enough, by the river the pot is too big to get away from and players find themselves busting because they 'were getting the right price to call'. The truth however is that many times they weren't.

I say this mostly because it is the biggest leak in my own game. I almost always call min raises, especially preflop, and with big blind sizes this can be disastrous. More than once I have found myself up against a min-raiser who got me into raised pots with a series of hands like T8, 46s, K2s, TJ, etc... And before I know it, I've been whittled down to nothing. I then tend to berate that kind of play and complain that all these guys are doing is raising everyones variance. The truth though, is that with middling stacks and big blinds, it can be damn frustrating to play against because mistakes come really easy. Any situation where I can make my opponent prone to errors is good right?

Well, this is what I've been thinking lately anyways.

I think to some degree this is confirmed by the simple fact that professionals do it! How many final tables have you watched where pros are firing min-raises at each other. It happens. Surely then, it cannot be as cut and dry as often described in this forum.

My suggestion is that the real animosity towards min-raises stems not from it's foolishness (though it is sometimes foolish) but rather from the fact that it so often throws a wrench in our otherwise seamless decision making process. I for one HATE min-raisers.

Regards
Brad S

[caretaker1]

My $.02,

I don't like the mini-raise (I'm talking about the mini-raise in general, not necessarily with only AA). I'm also assuming fairly early in a tourney, with a full or almost full table.

Remember some of the reasons to raise:
Build money in the pot, to thin the field, to take down blinds: A miniraise does none of these well. The biggest danger I see to not raising large with a big hand is not thinning the field; specifically, you let small and medium pairs see the flop cheaply. This is particularly devastating because you are potentially giving huge implied odds to a flopped set. For example, if an opponent bets a significant amount at the blinds (4-6 times for example), that can put a large amount of pressure on middle to low pairs to call (remember you'll only hit a set about 1 in 8 times and you only have so many chips to start with). If you had AA in the hole and miniraised, and I could get in for that amount, with a lower pair, I would to see the flop. Let's say the flop comes with my set card and no ace. Imagine how hard it would be to throw away aces to a significant bet. You would might think you're still best, but in reality be a 90%-10% underdog. If I don't hit the set, I fold and you've only won a minimal amount from me.
Another advantage to raising high is, when you get callers, there will usually be few and they are usually dominated, and often they will have trouble releasing their hand because they've already contributed a large amount to the pot. Ideally you're hoping for callers like AK, AQ who hit the K or Q and whom you will often double through in the process (Obviously KK and QQ are good callers too, particularly with all undercards on the flop). Again, I'm no expert, but that's my $.02.

[Hood]

[ QUOTE ]
I think what so many people get wrong with the min-raise is the suggestion that it always prices opponents into the hand or that it is always correct to call it if you are already in.

As any limit (tourney, SNG, or ring) player will attest, there are plenty of times when it is correct to fold to a limit (min) raise. If it is such a common leak to see people always calling these in NLHE sngs, why not exploit it now and then?

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you exploit the fact that people always call min-raises? One way I do it is with - AA and KK when we're on or near the bubble. More change of getting a call so I can take down a bigger pot on the flop. But other than that, I can't think of another way it can be exploited.

I think mainly because there's very few times pre-flop that I want to encourage everyone to call. As caretaker1 says, the aims in raising can all be achieved better with another action.

[ QUOTE ]
The best example of this is in bubble play where players should be conservative about big confrontations but can't seem to get away from a pot when the raising is small. Well, sure enough, by the river the pot is too big to get away from and players find themselves busting because they 'were getting the right price to call'. The truth however is that many times they weren't.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the bubble, unless I've got aces or kings, I don't want to see the flop. The blinds are high enough to steal. I either want to take down the blinds, or get all-in.

[ QUOTE ]
I say this mostly because it is the biggest leak in my own game. I almost always call min raises, especially preflop, and with big blind sizes this can be disastrous. More than once I have found myself up against a min-raiser who got me into raised pots with a series of hands like T8, 46s, K2s, TJ, etc... And before I know it, I've been whittled down to nothing. I then tend to berate that kind of play and complain that all these guys are doing is raising everyones variance. The truth though, is that with middling stacks and big blinds, it can be damn frustrating to play against because mistakes come really easy. Any situation where I can make my opponent prone to errors is good right?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the first levels, if I've already limped in or I'm in the BB with a half-decent hand, I will always call a min-raise unless I fear a re-raise behind. This is because the odds surely justify it. But if I haven't entered the pot yet, I respect a min-raise as much as 3x or 4x raise - only because a min-raise represents a better hand. Near the bubble it's similar - I respect a min-raise unless I think he's on a blind steal.

[ QUOTE ]

Well, this is what I've been thinking lately anyways.

I think to some degree this is confirmed by the simple fact that professionals do it! How many final tables have you watched where pros are firing min-raises at each other. It happens. Surely then, it cannot be as cut and dry as often described in this forum.


[/ QUOTE ]

I always felt it's especially worse (and results-damaging) in SNG tournies - especially on the Party structure where chip value is so high. I think the increase in chip variance has a much greater effect.

[ QUOTE ]

My suggestion is that the real animosity towards min-raises stems not from it's foolishness (though it is sometimes foolish) but rather from the fact that it so often throws a wrench in our otherwise seamless decision making process. I for one HATE min-raisers.

Regards
Brad S

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I do hate min-raisers. In the first levels, it increases their variance, not mine, as I'm less likely to enter the pot. That's fine with me, because early on I look for reasons to do nothing until we're on level 3. Them min-raising means everyone else has increased variance, increasing the chances of losing all their money because their more likely to lose their stack on the flop with their top-pair-weak-kicker because theres already T200 in the pot.

[t_perkin]

We had a discussion about this a few weeks ago: The much maligned min-raise (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=691147&page=&view=&sb =5&o=)

I have been experimenting a bit with it here and there and this is basically what I think:

_____

If you have a monster hand and you have little fear of people drawing out on you then sometimes it is a good way of making more money - i.e. a potbuilder.

For example La Brujita´s hand (follow the link) with AA I would call a "monster" at this stage of the tournament against this shortstacked opponent. You are trying to commit him to the pot.
_____

Preflop i can see an argument for minraising in UTG or UTG+1 with AA or perhaps KK if you believe there are a number of aggressive players behind - but even then, a limp is probably more effective.
_____

If you are in the CO or button with a complete steal and you know that the SB will almost never fold to a limp but will often fold to 2BB. (which would be correct play for the SB?)
AND that the BB is equally likely to call 2BB as 3BB. (i.e. incorrect play by the BB)
_____

If you are in the CO or button with a complete steal and if the BB is slightly shortstacked so that he may not call. Or if you think he may not call for any other reason (incorrect play by the BB).
_____

If you are at the final table of a tournament and there are a number of quite short stacks (around 5BB). Playing a min raise in EP I find can encourage action and lead to players being knocked out.


------------------

So basically I would only make minraises in a few very particular situations. This in turn means that if you were to play regularly with me (and I were not to mix things up) you would have a very good read on what I was holding (strong hands in EP and weak hands in LP).

If you think that your opponent plays badly and will fold too often to a minraise then go ahead and make one. But I never watch people carefully enough and play with them long enough to be confident that this is the case (online). Generally I find that 3BB or a call makes life a lot easier.

Tim

p.s.: La Brujita: For the Ad7d hand:

If you think you have the best hand then you shouldn't be giving him odds to draw so you should bet harder.
If you don't think you have the best hand then you should just call.
If you don't know if you have the best hand then you should make up your mind! not bet somewhere between the two!

[La Brujita]

[ QUOTE ]
p.s.: La Brujita: For the Ad7d hand:

If you think you have the best hand then you shouldn't be giving him odds to draw so you should bet harder.
If you don't think you have the best hand then you should just call.
If you don't know if you have the best hand then you should make up your mind! not bet somewhere between the two!


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey there,

Thanks for the comments on the hand. I posted it because I thought it was interesting and was a bit puzzled when nobody commented.

One thing I want to note is 99.5% of the time I make a pot sized raise in that situation. Because of the dynamics of the tournament in that hand I felt a double up with this hand was crucial to my chances of making the final table (I had AA busted with a huge non mini raise pre flop later to lose).

I reviewed what I thought were the weighted average probabilites (I thought it was somewhat to very likely he was drawing to a few outs) and decided that I was most likely not pricing him in. Of course he could have had A higher kicker, but he could have had a middle pair or even nothing.

I guess my point is that risk analysis and situation dependency are two more factors to add to the mini raise discussion.

I considered a check call but I did not basically for two reasons (i) I was convinced he would call my miniraise with any two (due to my read on him), ie I could build the pot size and (ii) I felt I could commit him to drawing slim/dead with the sweetened pot.

Also,

stripsqueez, I agree most players are not great post flop on the internet but I do think two of the reasons people on television miniraise more (as someone else mentioned) are as I mentioned above are familiarity with their opponents and the ability to watch reactions.

[patrick dicaprio]

i think that is a good use of it, namely to induce an all in. if you normally raise 3-4BB and min raise many players will assume you are weak. i made this play the other day with AA, and after my minraise JJ came over the top. of course a J came on the river. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

Pat

[Jonathan]

[ QUOTE ]

My suggestion is that the real animosity towards min-raises stems not from it's foolishness (though it is sometimes foolish) but rather from the fact that it so often throws a wrench in our otherwise seamless decision making process. I for one HATE min-raisers.


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you see this as a leak in your game? Especially if the min-raiser is often making an error by min-raising, you should be delighted to sit down at a table full of min-raisers, no?

Suerte,
Jonathan